Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Web is Text Based

marksonland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: My Web is Text Based

#41

Post by KWD »

mixmax wrote: post #17

Video is primarily for entertainment, text is for conveying information. At least on the net. Newspapers don't seem to understand this - a lot of them are starting to have videoclips on their sites, apparently to grab marketshare from TV. It's much more expensive than writing an article, and it doesn't work. There are, of course exceptions: "nipslips", catastrophes and such call for video, but most news don't.

Agree. It's especially annoying when the video link is not marked as such on the newspaper site. I immediately bounce back. If I wanted video I'd be elshewhere.

Re: My Web is Text Based

#42

Post by davidw »

jacquesm wrote: post #29
unalone wrote: post #2

This shift over to primarily video content irritates me: I like reading text, and video is difficult with my college's slow Internet.

I think the main reason why we're seeing such a shift is that in the long run it is easier to ram advertising down people's throats over a video link than it is to get them to click on ads in textual content. The CPM's paid for delivered video ads reflect that, they count those much higher than delivered (but not clicked) text or graphics (even flash) ads.

I don't know... there are also a lot of 'screencasts' coming out from developers. Personally I can't really stand them, for most of the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread. The only excuse for them that I could see would be that they'd be easier to put together than a well-written article with appropriate code clippings and images, but I'm skeptical of that.

Re: My Web is Text Based

#43

Post by jodrellblank »

markessien wrote: post #36

The problem does not lie with video - the problem is that video today is very linear. Even people who think they prefer text do not actually do so - they just prefer being in control of the reading speed and being able to immediately jump to the information they want. Imagine video that behaved like a real person sitting opposite you. You type in google - "Where is Tibet", and a video immediately pops up with a perso…

I kind of agree here - I much prefer the control over text, until the text gets massive. It's very easy to keep getting lost in one big page of text when trying to follow along a guide of something.

It's also pretty bad trying to follow guides when the text is full of pictures.

Google finance has a fantastic dynamic web application feature - it has a big graph of stock price for the stock you are looking at, and next to it a list of news items relevant to that company and its industry.

As you zoom and scroll the graph, the news items change to only show news for the time period you are looking at.

Re: My Web is Text Based

#45

Post by TweedHeads »

For me, videos on the web should be no longer than a minute. A funny cat, a plane crashing, a meteor shower, etc. concise and to the point.

I can't stand long conversations in video that can be resumed in ten lines of text.

Re: My Web is Text Based

#46

Post by whatusername »

jkkramer wrote: post #18
KaiP wrote: post #8

The main problem I have with video over text is that it takes much longer to convey the same information. I can read about 5 times faster (450-500 wpm) than most video (90-100 wpm). So other than special cases where video is crucial, I much prefer text.

Sometimes I like watching videos precisely because it's slower: the delivery has nuance; I can ruminate a bit; things stick in my memory. A good speaker can really amplify the meaning and memorability of information. Really, it depends on the situation. Speed isn't always the most important thing.

"A good speaker can really amplify the meaning and memorability of information." I think a lot of the TED talks prove this point!

(still - i'd love to see transcripts)

Re: My Web is Text Based

#47

Post by jimbokun »

KaiP wrote: post #8

The main problem I have with video over text is that it takes much longer to convey the same information. I can read about 5 times faster (450-500 wpm) than most video (90-100 wpm). So other than special cases where video is crucial, I much prefer text.

I have the same issue, generally preferring text over video, but I make an exception for espn.com. Usually I want to pick and choose game highlights to watch (such as seeing what kind of freakish dunks LeBron unleashed last night). I don't even get the ESPN cable station, but I find the user experience of watching highlights of any game played whenever I want, and switch back and forth between highlights, write-ups, and box scores, to be a far superior experience than just watching Sports Center.

Now, watching the talking heads instead of just reading a write-up, I do not get at all. It always confuses me to see a lot of the talking head videos near the top of the "most watched" lists.

Re: My Web is Text Based

#48

Post by jimbokun »

markessien wrote: post #36

The problem does not lie with video - the problem is that video today is very linear. Even people who think they prefer text do not actually do so - they just prefer being in control of the reading speed and being able to immediately jump to the information they want. Imagine video that behaved like a real person sitting opposite you. You type in google - "Where is Tibet", and a video immediately pops up with a perso…

No, I really just want the text.

What you describe sounds like the Clippy-fication of Google, a terrifying thought.

Re: My Web is Text Based

#49

Post by jimbokun »

antiismist wrote: post #6

I feel the same way about ESPN. I like reading interesting articles about sports but it is actually not that easy to find good content - there is no hacker news for sports (yet!).

I find Bill Simmons writing on sports excellent. He kind of disguises the quality of his writing with the references to crappy pop culture and the sophomoric behavior of him and his buddies. But in doing so I think he reveals a lot about who sports fans really are, not some idealized version. He often talks about whether or not he has wasted his life by devoting so much time and effort to following sports and making jokes about how pathetic his wife thinks he is for agonizing over his fantasy teams (she calls his fantasy league "The League of Dorks").

I find it hard to get into other sports writers now, partly because Simmons does such a good job skewering them. When they try to make sports into something epic or sacred, Simmons is quick to point out all the frailties of both the competitors and the poor saps who devote too much time to something that doesn't really mean all that much to their lives.

And then he dives right back into reveling in the joy of being passionate about something that is ultimately meaningless, capturing the essence of being a sports fan.

(I have no idea why I just wrote three paragraphs about this. Must be infected by whatever gets into Simmons when he does one of those day long live chats.)

Re: My Web is Text Based

#50

Post by brandnewlow »

jimbokun wrote: post #49
antiismist wrote: post #6

I feel the same way about ESPN. I like reading interesting articles about sports but it is actually not that easy to find good content - there is no hacker news for sports (yet!).

I find Bill Simmons writing on sports excellent. He kind of disguises the quality of his writing with the references to crappy pop culture and the sophomoric behavior of him and his buddies. But in doing so I think he reveals a lot about who sports fans really are, not some idealized version. He often talks about whether or not he has wasted his life by devoting so much time and effort to following sports and making…

I've never been one for team sports, preferring running, swimming and the like.

But I have read and will read anything written by Bill Simmons. The man is one of the great writers of our time. He's the Stephen King of sports writers, a guy who keeps pumping out solid, often great stuff that transcends his genre.

I don't follow football, but I read Simmons' picks during the season. I don't follow basketball, but I read his trade value column every year. Why? Because

-the guy explains it in an interesting way -puts it in the proper perspective like you said -links me out to great, great stuff I never would have found otherwise (like the greatest YouTube video ever: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&#38...) -is now living a bit of a glamorous, interesting life that's fun to experience vicariously -can write like the devil

This is a guy who took a week to review the Karate Kid trilogy in detail instead of filing regular columns one summer. http://espn.go.com/page2/movies/s/simmons/020830.html

And yet he attended a funeral for a young athlete who died senselessly, and wrote a "serious" piece that was moving, humble and very honest: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/0803...

There are writers who excel at structure, writers who are idea guys, writers who can nail little details, and then there are writers who simply have more firepower than the average man. They can write more, faster, and with more panache than 99% of the folks out there. It won't all be good, but it'll all be interesting. Simmons has a lot of firepower.

Which, to get back on topic, is why it's INFURIATING, that he's cranking out 3-4 podcasts a month and only 1-2 columns at this point. I simply can't listen to the podcasts. They don't fit into my schedule at all, in any way. I don't have an hour to stare at my computer while it plays an audio stream. Bring back the columns.

Post reply on HN